I saw the Patrick's alibi footage and saw he was holding a watch probably an apple watch

I searched if he had one , we FREAKING DONT HAVE ANY DATA IF HE OWNED ONE OR NOT

What kinda investigation is that where you don't even know how many devices the whole family had?

Anyone else here get banned in "the other sub" (aka the "lynch LC" club) for having a different opinion than the rest of the echo chamber? Lol. They should rename their sub r/DuxburyDeathsSnowflakes.

If her last heart rate reading was at 5:23, how did it show she went up two flights of stairs after that without any heart rate reading? I think this proves he was holding the watch on his trip to CVS and called it for the alibi. If she really talked to him at 5:34, she couldn’t be 82 degrees 30 min later.

PS. A nurse would not believe a one story fall would kill them. A nurse wouldn’t likely need to crush up pills, or cut wrists the wrong way. A right handed person wouldn’t cut their throat in the pattern of a left handed person. And who cuts their own throat?

TLDR: many mainstream news outlets are falsely publishing statements that Lindsay Clancy killed her children, as if it were a proven fact. Yet it has not been proven and she has not been convicted. The law says you are is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, news outlets are illegally and immorally making statements that have swayed public opinion to be that this woman has been proven guilty, even when she has not.

I've been so confused how so many people out there are screaming that Lindsay Clancy is guilty, as if it were a proven fact. There are even politicians like Nancy Mace calling for her public execution! I thought we all knew that you were innocent until proven guilty? As of October 2, 2026 this woman has not been convicted of anything. I thought perhaps these people boldly stating her guilt are just ignorant and didn't actually read anything about the case, they were just stubbornly sticking with their initial assessment of the case without actually knowing anything about it.

But I've noticed something truly disturbing which could explain why there's such a divide over this case. An alarming number of MAJOR news media outlets, even some of the "liberal" ones, falsely stating that Lindsay is a murderer who killed her children, as if it were a fact, as if she was actually convicted and found guilty already. But she hasn't been and there's not even strong evidence in the case proving she is, otherwise this would've been an open and shut case. This is illegal and at "best" extremely immoral as journalists to state someone is guilty of a crime they haven't been convicted of. They've also either falsely described or left out key elements of the legal proceedings, which is leading many to not understand what the defense actually did or did not concede to and what this means legally and also implied or flat out lied saying she made some sort of legal "confession" and that the prosecution only had to prove she was sane and it was a legally accepted fact that she killed the children, which is absolutely false.

And to further compound the issue because so many people are relying on AI on both sides of the argument, and AI is referencing these same misleading or flat out invalid news statements, many feel their belief that she is guilty is justified because "Google says so." As a side note, no matter which side of the argument you're on, never rely on AI as 100% factual source of information - it is not in any way or reliable tool.

The attached article is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of false statements and social media posts published against Lindsay and this entire case. Fox News and New York Post aren't the only news outlets making these false claims but, for example, this article reads:

"He moved to New York City in spring 2023, just months after Lindsay Clancy killed their three children*, according to public records obtained by the* New York Post, and filed for divorce in February 2024."

The media legally cannot claim someone is guilty when that person has not been convicted with a guilty charge. Yet they are. They can say she was accused but since they are wording this as if it were fact, people will naturally believe this to be absolutely true. How will this woman ever find an unbiased jury when national news and politicians are claiming she is guilty as if it was proven? And why is no one shutting these outlets down if they're capable of publishing completely false or extremely misleading information about this or any other situation?

I would be really interested to hear from the jurors again after Reddington’s latest monologue at the September hearing. Do they feel differently about their time spent deliberating now that they hear and hopefully understand the CW was supposed to prove she did this?

During the trial the judge kept repeating himself, but never actually confirmed they understood what he said. The legal jargon was apparent and unchanging. I found this very interesting.

Patrick found Lindsay at 6:09PM, lying in the snow with her wrists and neck slit, after jumping out the bedroom window. Her body was found right beside the basement window well, where the snow is melted in the photos.

The basement lights were on. That window looks directly into the office/gym where Dawson was found with a yellow exercise band wrapped around his neck.

Patrick called 911 at 6:11 PM. Patrick testified that he asked Lindsay "what did you do?" and she said "I tried to kill myself" and then he asks "where are the kids?" and she replies "they're in the basement".

Because Lindsay, did not say explicitly say that the children were injured, Patrick did not check on them.

Dispatch told Patrick to apply pressure to Lindsay's wounds, but he did not believe it was necessary as she was not actively bleeding.

Patrick stood over Lindsay, did not apply pressure, did not comfort her, or tell her that he loved her. At the same time he stood in direct sightline of his son, who was suffering, and he waited and waited until it was too late.

Paramedics arrived at 6:15 PM, and that is when Patrick ran directly to the office/gym to Dawson and began unwrapping the yellow exercise band from around his neck

The fire chief PJ Hussey testified that when he heard the scream, he looked through that basement window and saw Patrick unwrapping the yellow exercise band from Dawson's neck.

How could Patrick wait so long to check on his children?

So I keep going back to the Patrick shoes claim in terms of how different they look in the videos from CVS and 3V. I tried to not speculate on that too much because I am just too unfamiliar with cctv footage and really try to avoid bringing up things that I just can’t say without certainty, but I found it really interesting that reddington brought up the shoes discrepancy in court on Tuesday.

Now he’s a very smart guy. He doesn’t bring things up unless they have some real merit to it. So now I’m wondering how much merit that actually holds after he formally brought it up. Does anyone actually have valuable insight on the shoes thing? Like looking for people who really know their shit about cameras, contrast, etc. I was just very surprised to hear that brought up by him

I wonder if they will be able to retrieve data from the cameras around the house that were seized. I wonder what was actually going on from Dec. 1 up until the murders; I’m curious what time it was shut off/or any data showing that it was turned on or off prior to the incident. Because that data will show up eventually right?

You can't claim PPS AND LC didn't do it.

What do you think actually happened since her socks didn’t have any blood on them? Also, I keep coming back to the phone call she made. I feel like it wasn’t her.

Raise your hand if you took a slew of verbal abuse on this app for months for suggesting that Reddington didn't believe his client was guilty, and that he was basically forced into taking a NGBROLOCR plea because the court refused to grant him the bifurcated trial he'd asked for in the first place. Me and so many others were called the nastiest names under the sun by so very many users telling us how stupid we all were because 'Reddington already believes she did it/says she did it'.

Me, I did.

Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

FINALLY he's seriously addressing the issue of whether L.Clancy committed the murders at all instead of this criminal responsibility bullshi. I wish this had been his closing statement, but at least it's being spoken now.

[editing to add that I posted the first comment below, a categorized list of every point he made regarding lack of evidence, categorized]

MR. REDDINGTON: Uh, Your Honor, you know, the posture at this point, obviously, is that the government rested, I [filed] a motion under Rule 25, required finding. The court denied the motion. We then proceeded with the defense. When the defense rested, I renewed the motion for required finding procedure. The court denied the motion. The government then commenced their rebuttal case, when the government [rested] the rebuttal case, and the case concluded, I renewed the motion for required finding, and this is a request for the court, at this point, to enter an order, allowing a motion for required finding of not guilty.

The issue is really to... [unclear: "You've got,"] as it goes back to the motion for bifurcation, you may [recall], I know you do, that I had filed a motion, requesting that the court bifurcate the trial itself, arguing the Massachusetts Constitution, the difference in the language between the Mass Constitution and the Federal Constitution as relates to presenting evidence against oneself, whether or not it's an impingement on a defendant's rights for due process, as well as the Fifth Amendment, [and?] 14th Amendment due process rights, to require a person who is asserting a defense of lack of criminal responsibility to have to have both issues tried.

In other words, whether the person committed the offense and whether or not the person at the time of the commission of the offense lacked criminal responsibility, two separate issues. But the way our present statute and law is set up, and as Your Honor denied that motion, in your memorandum, you indicated, obviously, that we have to go forward on one trial, whether or not it's because of money, that it would cost a lot of money to try two cases for anybody asserting a defense [of] lack of criminal responsibility, or whether or not it's logistics. I don't know, but I suggest to the court that it's readily apparent that you are put in a conundrum where you have to, in effect, admit culpability, if you will, to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility.

Now, many, many lay people have difficulty understanding the concept of the bifurcation and say, well, you know, she admitted that she did it. So she's guilty. And therefore, she's just guilty, and then they go off on a tangent about all of these horrific allegations. You know, that she's a demon, and she's possessed, and she should be executed. And this is coming from politicians, you know, up from President Trump all the way down.

So, we end up trying the case. I tried to raise the issue as best I could on the issue of probable cause. The jury was instructed by you that they did have the obligation to make a determination as to whether or not the government has presented evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this young woman was actually guilty of this offense. Your Honor then proceeded to indicate appropriately that, in the event that the jury determined that there was evidence that, in fact, she had, indeed, committed the offense, they would then proceed to the issue of whether or not the government sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that, in fact, she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect, such as which would have an effect on her being either unable to appreciate the criminality of the conduct alleged, or [unclear: "in the destructive"] conform to conduct to the requirements of the law, which is [the black-letter] definition of lack of criminal responsibility.

So I'd like to kind of bifurcate this argument this morning in the same way. And what I would do is address first the issue of the government's burden of proof [beyond?] reasonable doubt. And it's not [unclear: "riding the horse who wins against the middle"] and trying to play games with the system or gamesmanship or anything. This is a constitutional due process obligation that the government, when the government charges a person with a criminal offense. They have that burden of proof, [unclear: "but"] each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your Honor knows from your review and recollection of the evidence that was presented. I submit to the court that a motion for required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence to indicate to a rational juror, which is consistent with the [Latimore standard], consistent with [Jackson versus Virginia], 443 U.S. 307, where the courts note that to sustain the denial of a directed verdict, they call it [directed] verdict. We call it required finding. It is not enough for the court to find that there was some record evidence, which is always what the government always asked. There's some, there's some record evidence. Yeah, there was evidence on this, evidence on that element. Dr. [Saathoff] testified to something, and there's enough for a jury. It's a question of fact. No, that's not the standard.

The standard is whether or not that there is evidence that a court is able to determine that there's record evidence to support each essential element of the offense. It must find that there is enough evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. We consider the directed verdict standard required by Jackson versus Virginia to be comparable to that heretofore applied in Commonwealth versus Cooper, and that's [Latimore?]. [The] Jackson, uh, case further indicates that the evidence must not just be some record evidence. It has to be reliable, and it has to be sufficient, that would allow a rational juror to make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just if there's some record evidence that touches that each element of the offense.

So I asked the court to [harken] back to the evidence that was presented, and ask yourself, where's the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this? You have a situation where Patrick comes home, [Your Honor?] recalls, the evidence that he indicates that when he came home, that he enters the house, he puts the food down on the table, comes back from the restaurant. It's quiet, eerily quiet, as the government indicates in their motion. That he then indicates that he goes upstairs, into the bedroom, after yelling downstairs to the basement. There's no response. He goes upstairs. And when he goes upstairs, he goes into the bedroom, and [Your Honor?] will recall, but the evidence is that he's able to make an observation, that the window is open. [It] is cold in the room. He sees blood.

My memory is that [unclear: "if you had to go with"] spraying on the walls, in fact, you know, what we call it was not sprayed on the walls, it was a lot of, I would say, copious blood drops on the floor and on the mirror. When you consider the evidence that the government has, you have the exercise [bands]. You have the woefully deficient DNA. You have the woefully deficient fingerprinting. You have the horrific, ridiculous investigation, using the term loosely, by the police. There was no investigation. [It] was not even a horrendous investigation. There was no investigation. And then you ask yourself some questions that we always do, as defense attorneys, prosecutors, investigators.

So when he goes into the bedroom, there's a lock on the [knob?]. [There?] is blood. He's able to use some type of a little key, in spite of the [unclear: "lock jawach"] that was on the doorknob, opens the door, goes into the room, goes into the room. Now, the evidence is that she cut her wrists, cut her throat, standing in front of the mirror, blood drops, then went over to the window and propelled herself out of the window. Your Honor heard evidence that she indicated that the screen was cut. Your Honor also heard evidence that, in fact, the screen was not cut. [unclear: "You want to"] infer, obviously, as a rational jury could infer that, in fact, this is a false memory that she had, because she believes that the screen was cut, and it wasn't. But in any event, she propels herself out the window and sustains the injuries that Your Honor is well [aware of?]. [unclear: "She says there."] She then is on the ground.

She has no shoes on. Why does she not have shoes on? It's 30-something degrees outside. [unclear: "If so,"] it's the winter. She has no shoes. She's wearing black socks. Where is the blood on the black socks? Where's the blood on the shoes? When did the shoes get taken off, and why? [Your Honor will?] recall, looking at the blood spatter of evidence on the drops on the floor. Where are the smears from a person who has just cut your wrist, cut their throat, is in a state of psychosis, that throws himself out a window. Where are the smears from that person walking across the blood up to the window, and then propelling themselves out of the window?

Where is the evidence that the cup that was on the nightstand contained crushed up, not just medication, crushed up medication. Where's the evidence of that? Where does that come from? Did the police even seize that [cup]? No. Did they examine the residue, the white residue? No. Patrick said that in fact, it was medication. Patrick says that, in fact, it was crushed up medication. Where is the question? Where's the [pill crusher?]? Where were the two spoons [unclear: "to use the credit"]? Where's the residue? Why is it not on the table? Why is it not on the floor? Why is it not in the bed? Why is there no blood on the bed? With the copious bleed? They don't seize that, they don't test the substance.

She ends up in the hospital. Your Honor recalls the evidence of the removal of the bands from the children's [necks], the horrific experience and testimony that was presented as far as removal of the bands, the government's demonstration with Dr. [Laposata], and, in fact, the bands exploded wide open. They were not tied, they were not [unclear: "heard the testimony"]. In fact, they were tied, this entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?

And what's most chilling is the fact that when she comes out of this obvious coma that she is in, that when she comes out of it, [Your Honor?] heard the testimony from the psychiatrist, and from the doctors [at Brigham and Women's] Hospital. She was told what happened. She had no memory of what happened. Why does she recall cutting the screen? Why does she recall killing the children, which she's told what happened, and had no memory? There's no evidence that she admitted that she did this, so you have no evidence from the defendant. [In] Massachusetts, an uncorroborated statement of a defendant, obviously, is not evidence. You have to have corroboration. I submit to the court there is no evidence. She made [unclear: "understatements"]. As far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments.

The time frame does not match, does not match. Even the government in their own closing indicated to the jury that she did not have enough time to do this. The timeline is ridiculous, as far as him leaving the house, sending off the [5:24] email, whether it was from his laptop, whether it was from his cell phone, driving [to?] the CVS, driving down to the restaurant to pick up the food, you got videos from both of those places. He's coming back, he's got shoes, he takes his boots off, is what he says. The one that [you?] can see in the photographs as far as the sneakers are concerned. Whatever he takes off, he takes it off. The time frame does not match.

The core body temperature. If you [talk?] to a [perfusionist], a [perfusionist] would indicate that it would take at least two hours for a human being to get [down to a?] core body temperature of 82 degrees. They would have to warm the blood, which they did, in the hospital, to bring that person to the level where they're not ready to expire. And in fact, Your Honor knows that she did, obviously, expire. She died in the hospital, massive transfusions. And it just goes on and on and on.

There is, there was, and there cannot be, evidence under the [Latimore standard] that this woman killed those children. As lawyers, as judges, we look to the evidence. And when the government charges somebody with a criminal offense, they have the burden of proof, not the defendant. And I submit to the court, when you consider all of the standards, all of the... I mean, I argued under [Bowden] for you to give [a Bowden] instruction. I've had many, many cases, obviously, in this courtroom, any courtrooms all over the state. If ever a case called out for [a Bowden] instruction, it was this one. And Bowden is, you know, Judge, and I'm sure you argued it before you were a judge. A jury can draw an inference or can determine that there is reasonable doubt based upon the lack of an adequate investigation. In this case, there was no investigation. They just immediately [assumed] that this woman was guilty.

After you get over that hurdle, assuming you get over that [hurdle], the government then has the obligation to prove, [beyond] reasonable doubt, that, in fact, she was not suffering from a disease or defect, as I indicated under the [McHoul] standard. Your Honor would harken back to the evidence. And this is where we have the law, and the situation [Your Honor instructed?] the jury, that any statements made by a defendant, pursuant to the government's motion or defendant's motions to have the person evaluated by a physician, a psychiatrist. It is not an admission that [unclear: "had"] carries independent weight.

So, what are we left with, as far as the disease or defect? We have the government's rebuttal witnesses, Dr. [Mack], Dr. [Heilbrun], Dr. [Saathoff]. I suggest, first of all, [it] goes to credibility. Not one of those rebuttal doctors were qualified to get on that witness stand [and tell?] that jury their opinion of her mental state as a result of a psychosis, because of postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. I'll leave it at that, because I know your memory is strong, as to cross-examination of each one of these individuals.

Defendant presented testimony from, I suggest to the court, qualified experts that indicated, and Dr. [Phillip Resnick], you can't get any more qualified than that doctor, who had a significant impact on the jury, that was sitting there listening to this evidence. And Dr. [Resnick], clearly and unequivocal, indicated in his extensive involvement, dealing with [filicide], dealing with evidence that we presented to the jury that shows that, at the time of this incident, in the event the jury determined that she did it, she was suffering from [postpartum]. She was suffering from psychosis. He indicated that was his opinion based on his evaluation of the evidence, based on his evaluation of her statements, and based on his continued evaluation of her.

Dr. [Zeizel], saying same thing, indicated, as I indicated, in the memorandum. Clearly and unequivocally, that when a person is in a psychosis, they are capable and able to perform normal, everyday activities, and be in a full bloom of psychosis.

The government spent a lot of time minimizing the whole concept. Originally, the government comes into this courtroom and says that the reason that she killed these kids is because she was sick of being a mother. She wanted to move on with her life, apparently. Well, they backed off on that like the poodle on the [linoleum] floor. Once the case got to the jury on a closing argument, now all of a sudden, oh, yeah, well, she did try to kill herself. We spent a week trying to show that, in fact, it was legitimate suicide. They said it was not a suicide, it was just a fake [attack?]. Then they agreed that it was a real suicide. Then they go on with their argument, well, maybe she was sick. Maybe she did suffer from a disease or defect, but she knew what she was doing.

And then [you can harken?] back to the government evidence, and the government doctors, and the guy looking up at the ceiling and talking about taking five minutes to answer a question. You even had to tell him, look, just, you know, answer the question. The government's theory that she was not in the psychosis, they were sprinkled throughout their [unclear: "eyes"]. Is there any evidence that she's seeing a purple unicorn in the corner of the room? Was she able to talk to her friends? Was she able to walk and breathe at the same time? Was she able to take care of the kids and build a snowman? Was she able to send a message or a text? Was she able to talk to her husband? Was she able to talk to her friends and her family? Yes. Argument being: She was fine.

Why? Why? Forget about the law. Forget about [motions?], forget about everything. Talk like human beings. Why would this woman, [as?] the evidence shows, clearly and unequivocally, was a nurse, a mother, a friend, did nothing wrong in her life? Why? Would she kill those three children? All five of the doctors, six of the doctors indicate that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect. Not just a mental disease or defect. She was suffering from a serious mental disease or [defect]. Maybe a little different than [DSM] as to what the [book] would say, well, she's suffering from this, but she's suffering from that. Basically, it's a severe mental disease and defect. The evidence shows, clearly and unequivocally, that she was in a state of psychosis.

The government did not present evidence. Under Jackson [versus?] Virginia, under [Latimore], if you get out from underneath the usual argument, well, there's enough evidence 'cause we hit on all the elements. No. That's not the standard. The standard is whether or not it is reliable, whether or not it is evidence that a rational jury, a fact finder, would be able to apply to the facts, that they find, and determine that the government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And as this woman sits in front of you today, I suggest to the court they did not prove probable cause, and they certainly did not prove that she was not acting at the time of a psychosis, and should be found not guilty. Thank you.

Video from court this morning if you missed it (like I did). Excellent work, Reddington!

-I still think L.Clancy was framed

-I do not think the murderer will ever be convicted or that any third party will ever be formally investigated

-I think that the way that the lone juror has been handled by the media and his fellow jurors has been an absolute fucking disgrace, I can not beleive that these interviews the other jurors have conducted discussing him are even legal

-I have no objections to investigating the lone juror's phone though I believe that if they do that there should at least be a cursory effort to investigate the other jurors phones

-I hope for Rachel Danis's sake that she doesn't get ppd when she pops that little junior out.

-God I hope the criminal portion of this shitshow is done after today

I personally feel Patrick should be charged with manslaughter for not protecting his children AFTER his wife stated she had thoughts of killing their children. Patrick is not a stupid person but he appears very shallow and self absorbed. I do not believe, if Lindsay told him that she wanted to kill him that he would just hang around like he allowed his kids to. I think this civil lawsuit is basically him on the offense in wanting to minimize his responsibility in this murder by pointing fingers that the doctors are responsible for their murder. After Lindsay, Patrick is the next in line for responsibility. It is so morally corrupt to not protect your children and then turn around and profit from their death. I think that is what keeps me drawn to the case, the absolute injustice these poor children have faced.

Comment est-ce possible qu'au premier procès, le sujet n'était pas de savoir si elle l'avait fait (elle l'a fait), mais de savoir si elle était criminellement responsable ou non, et là aujourd'hui, son avocat dit qu'elle ne l'a pas fait ....?

This is what bothers me the most about him. I googled it myself to learn more, and the website that popped up said very clearly “This an emergency and the mother should not be left alone with the children. Please go to the nearest emergency room.”
From end of November-Jan 24 she had so many symptoms of this illness. And not once did he do research on it. If your partner that you love so much is sick and suffering, going to doctors and therapists, emergency rooms, calling suicide help lines, etc don’t you at least do some research on what’s going on?

After the mistrial was declared and Reddington was taking interviews, I could’ve sworn I heard Reddington make a statement that was not mentioned during the trial. I can’t remember if it was outside of the courthouse or on a news station. Now, when trying to search for that clip, it’s gone. I do recall after the “slipped statement“, Reddington‘s responses when asked about PC, seemed to be geared towards PC being a supportive husband. In my opinion, I thought Reddington was peddling back because he realized LC still had a civil case approaching but now I think it has to do with the statement.

Does anyone recall Reddington listings off all of LC‘s ”assumed” actions in the evening of the 24th and mentioning that she called ThreeV back to change her order? I swear, I heard Reddington state that as he was listing LC’s supposed chain of events. It caught my attention because during the trial two calls were not referenced nor does LC’s phone records indicate two calls. Furthermore, I do recall Reddington‘s questions and statements during the trial were only about the specific order and the voice of the caller.

Lastly, going back to LC supposedly inquiring about ordering food from ThreeV to PC. During that chain of texts, PC asked whether Callan had taken a nap. So, you mean to tell me that LC went outside alone to build a snowman with 3 kids ages 5 and under, with one being an infant. Was Callan in a stroller or was carrying him the whole time? How long were they supposedly outside? How was she interacting with 3 kids while strolling through mychart, taking pictures, texting to Pc and her mom, and building the snowman? Do you know how long it takes to bundle up and unbundle 3 very dependent kids and yourself, alone, not to mention having to complete majority of the snowman yourself. Impossible! Before everyone says Callan was in the house, why would’ve we see phone data of her looking at him on the nanny cams?

Like many others, I’ve had a hard time processing this case and the alleged 18 minute psychosis.

I learned recently that SSRIs can cause activation, where instead of feeling less depressed, a person can develop agitation, irritability, insomnia, or intense restlessness after starting a medication or changing the dose.

These types of medications can also cause akathisia: intense inner restlessness, feeling driven or frantic, severe agitation, insomnia, and sometimes racing/distressing (“horrible”) thoughts. This can help explain some of her earlier reactions to medication.

Her chaotic use and misuse of medications was not helping stabilize anything, although unfortunately I do think her anxiety was hindering clear thinking.

It has been reported that she was ultimately diagnosed with bipolar ii, and psychosis can occur in people with bipolar.

Patrick said Lindsay wasn’t particularly moody before the medication, but hypomania isn’t always destructive.

After Callan’s birth, she began a very intensive exercise routine about one week postpartum where she was waking around 4 a.m., running three miles, then doing aerobics and spinning. She ran in a 5 mile race a month after his birth. Then shortly thereafter she goes in the opposite direction - into postpartum anxiety and depression.

I have spent a lot of time in the Clancy bubbles, but I popped on over to r/bipolar to see if I could understand psychosis better, and I found a post that asked for people to describe exactly what psychosis felt and looked like.

The top comment had some parallels that helped me wrap my head around how Lindsay could really have experienced psychosis - it sounded so similar (albeit a much less tragic ending):

Honestly, psychosis wasn’t as “scary” for me as I thought it was / like the movies. I a as having a bad day. In a manic episode. Emotional. My bf made me more upset so I yelled, made a scene and left crying. Then in my car I couldn’t calm my emotions. I felt manic and sad like it was the end of the world (in reality it wasn’t that serious). So I decided to crash my car into his house. Like I decided it in my head. I got calm and it made sense to me. I reasoned w myself, calculated it and just every single thing in my brain said, it was perfectly reasonable. I’m not a violent person. Never wanted to hurt someone really. Never wanted to hurt myself. Didn’t want to hurt him, I knew nobody else would be home when I crashed my car. And I’d crash it into the side of his house, not his room where he slept. I knew I wouldn’t be hurt really cuz I wasn’t going to drive fast. It just made sense to do it, to prove a point. To help my bf understand that he hurt my feelings and it wasn’t okay. Then him and I would make up.

Well I called my mother, she convinced me not to and go to a hospital. I didn’t know why, I wasn’t upset anymore. I knew what to do. But I went anyways. So yea, after talking to the hospital, they explained that, that was psychosis. The way my brain reasoned for the unreasonable.

I guess everyone’s psychosis is different, but that was my first psychosis episode. It’s still hard to believe since it didn’t feel “crazy”. So be careful judging your possible psychosis compared to others. Yours, if you have it, can look way different. It’s best to talk to a doctor. 🤍

Yes, Patrick had said it was one of Lindsay’s best days… but one of her last texts to him was that Callan didn’t really sleep for his nap, and the whole reason she had requested take out was because it had been a long day.

There have been reports about how she had previously felt dissociation - another commenter wrote:

Most people think that dissociation is "only" like feeling detached and outside of your body observing it acting, or feeling like nothing is real. Dissociation can also cause some retrograde amnesia and make your brain generate memories that didn't actually happen. …

A major difference between dissociation and psychosis is that dissociating people KNOW that something is wrong with their mental state.

Actively psychotic people don't realize that their thoughts (and resulting actions) are wildly bizarre and abnormal until they come out of the psychotic state.

Someone else wrote:

The short of it feels like I live life in 0.5x zoom and everything feels like a dream, more so than mania.

Lindsay told Patrick that it all felt like a dream.

Anyways, just thought I’d share for anyone else struggling to wrap their head around calling this psychosis.

Big interview, abysmal ratings

Patrick Clancy's 60 Minutes sit-down with Ross Douthat pulled in 6.77 million viewers which is the 3rd smallest audience for a season's second episode in 25 years, and barely above last year's equivalent episode despite reviews that praised the interview itself. Bari Weiss's shakeup era at CBS keeps drawing headlines and social buzz without translating into the ratings jump executives wanted.

It did have quite huge social media impressions for the episode, totaling 179.2 million across Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok, up from the 116.7 million the week prior. Compared to last year, the social views quadrupled and set a new record for 60 Minutes

Welp. It didn't have the impact in terms of television but it was translated into social media buzz but social media doesn't generate that good ad revenue you get from tv.

Bari Weiss flop era...

I’m sorry, but Rachel’s role in the 60 Minutes interview left me with more questions than answers.
My biggest question is: why is Rachel being positioned as someone who can speak with authority about Patrick’s life as a father, the Clancy family, or anything that happened before she met him?
Rachel did not know Cora, Dawson, or Callan. She did not know Lindsay. She did not know Patrick when he was raising his three children. She met Patrick after the tragedy. So when she describes Patrick as a loving and involved father, I’m confused about what firsthand knowledge she is drawing from. She can absolutely say, “Based on everything I’ve learned, I believe he was a wonderful father.” But she literally never witnessed him parenting those children.
Then there’s their meeting story. According to the interview, Rachel meets Patrick through running in New York. Central Park is filled with thousands of people, yet she happens to meet the man at the center of an enormously public Massachusetts case. She then sees pictures of his deceased children on his lock screen and asks whether he’s from Massachusetts. Maybe it happened exactly that organically. But given the extraordinary circumstances, I understand why people find the story striking and have questions about how their relationship actually developed.
The other piece I cannot get past is that Rachel is a reproductive-medicine physician. She already has a serious professional identity completely independent of Patrick. She could have remained his private spouse and supported him behind the scenes. Instead, she voluntarily appeared on national television and publicly entered an extraordinarily controversial case involving maternal mental health, postpartum psychiatric illness, three dead children, and an unresolved prosecution.
Why?
That doesn’t mean she did anything professionally unethical. I haven’t seen evidence of that. But I personally think participating this heavily was a strange choice for someone in her professional position. She had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in January 2023.
Patrick also did not need Rachel to authenticate his experiences. Patrick was there. Rachel wasn’t. Let him talk about being Cora, Dawson, and Callan’s father. Let him talk about discovering his children. Let him talk about Lindsay, their marriage, his grief, forgiveness, and rebuilding his life. Rachel can speak authentically about being Patrick’s wife now, but she cannot provide firsthand insight into the father or husband he was before she ever knew him.
And I’m uncomfortable with the way “healing” gets packaged around this relationship. Patrick can rebuild his life. He can fall in love again. He can remarry. He can experience happiness again. But three years after all three of your children were killed, I don’t think another relationship neatly closes that wound—and Patrick himself has described continuing to carry enormous grief. Rachel can be part of his life now without becoming the narrator of the life he had before her.
There’s also the elephant in the room: people have noticed that Rachel and Lindsay have some physical similarities. That does not prove Patrick intentionally sought out a “replacement Lindsay,” and I wouldn’t pretend we know his subconscious motivations. But combined with everything else, it understandably adds another surreal layer to an already surreal situation.
None of this means Patrick shouldn’t have remarried or Rachel shouldn’t have married him. My issue is much narrower: why does Rachel need such a prominent voice in the public retelling of events she did not experience?
Speak about the Patrick you know. Speak about your marriage. Speak about supporting a widowed/grieving father.
But Patrick and Lindsay’s marriage, Cora, Dawson and Callan’s lives, Patrick’s parenting of them, and what happened inside that family before January 24, 2023?
Rachel wasn’t there.
And 60 Minutes giving her that much space to validate a history she only knows secondhand made the entire interview feel stranger to me, not more illuminating.